1. Institutional challenges for ensuring active public participation in WFD implementation Miedzyzdroje, April 21st-24th, 2002 Henrik Dissing, Head of Baltic Sea Program, WWF DK

2. Synopsis Directive requirements on PP Defining public participation Stakeholder analysis Why PP, what is it - and what is it not? Examples Recommendations My claim: WFD water quality objectives can only be achieved through mobilisation of the users and polluters as active partners in water management

3. Directive requirements “MS shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the RBMP. MS shall ensure that, for each RBD, they publish and make available for comments to the public, including users” (Article 14) Guidance on PP being drafted (part of WG2.9) Comprehensive time-table for involving the public in the planning process, starting by end of 2006 at latest - but preparing stakeholders for new conditions should be started already now

4. Defining PP + - responsibility From command-control to facilitate-integrate Information Consultation Participation Co-decision Self determination Per definition, participation means co-operation and a certain involvement in decision-making

5. Stakeholder analysis choose relevant stakeholders degree of interest existing institutions same rights? interested parties = stakeholders grouporganisationperson with an interest in the issue (affected / influence) eg industry, agriculture, households, NGOs Stakeholder analysis should include a.o. current water use, pollution level, relative cost levels, current incentives, experiences with EMAS, awareness level and knowledge of the river basin

6. Why PP?  partnerships for water! To obtain essential information, experience and creativity during phases - mobilise the actors To get commitment and accept in implementation To get a policy better adapted to all day society General improvement of the outcome To build a network, culture of co-operation, and, eventually, contribute to democracy To agree on principles for non-market values To facilitate transparency regarding fiscal flows These recommendations on PP sounds all very nice and correct, but there are concrete benefits for both industry and agriculture if they take a pro-active approach

7. PP is about Management of expectations Two-way communication Tailor-made, no blue print Feed-back to participants No predetermined outcome Expanding rights and responsibilties Creating win-win situations Basically, there is a difference between telling stakeholders what they can’t do, and motivating them to take considerate and constructive steps within a win-win context. Now, how to motivate people? Give them information, listen to their situation and allow them to influence decision-making. This will also imply that authorities (financed by tax-payers) will also be for the public.

8. Examples - PP in River Basins Danube Basin level. –The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) –The Danube Environmental Forum (DEF), an NGO platform with combined local and regional structure Regional and sub-basin level. –Examples include the Tisza Platform with 16 organisations –The Lower Danube Green Corridor between Rom, Bul, Ukr and Mol National Level. –A successful example is the development of a network of Bulgarian NGOs Local level –The Drava League, a local Croatian NGO around the Drava river

9. Examples - Planning process Scotland –Consultation on the basic decisions regarding transposition of the WFD into Scottish law and water management, with a first opportunity to inform broadly about upcoming economic principles and new measures - but there are widespread concern that it is only a skin-consultation UK –Stakeholder Forum at national level regarding WFD strategy France –”Water Parliaments” at River Basin Districts –Stakeholder analysis using a.o. interview techniques

10. Examples - The local level Lower Danube Green Corridor –4-country co-op on 700.000 ha nature restoration and protection, not that costly measure, socio-economic benefits (fisheries, other new incomes) significant although needs support; part of water management? and part of economic analysis? –Baltic level: joint wetlands restoration commitment (Helcom?) Solway Firth Partnership –Local partnership for sustainable development of coastal area, local agenda based on integrated approach; meadows as measure for nutrient retention,; which space for integrated management of natural resources in water management structures? –Baltic level: ICZM activities in several places, lack momentum

11. Examples - Business sectors Tubaek Stream, Southern Denmark –15 km stream, excessive run-off causing eutrofication, voluntary agreements with farmers achieved through careful dialogue by county and farmers union; ratio 1 staff-person : 100 farmers in future application of the model in other places –Benefits for farmers: preparing for CAP reform, saving money –Baltic level: a.o. the Baltic Sea Regional Project Graphics Corporate Sector, Denmark –Danish EPA demonstration program with graphics sector leading to 70- 90% reduction of water use, other environmental benefits; an opportunity to prepare for future measures through participatory approach, based on integrating environmental improvements into production set-up (EMAS) –Benefits for companies: market conditions, saving money –Baltic level: a.o. several Dancee projects

12. Recommendations Recognise that WFD is a shift of paradigm: from command/control to facilitate/integrate Start as soon as possible Undertake early stage stakeholder analysis Set up a Stakeholder Forum at RBD level Develop a PP strategy and consider PP “Director” Initiate internal capacity building processes Position the WFD process strategically Ensure funding for demonstration activities Investigate co-operation in Helcom framework